Interracial couple denied marriage license

[Interloper]

Looking at my Chinese wife I cannot deny the fact that there's something strangely different about the shape of her eyes or the color of her skin compared to me...

Yeah, she looks different. But, what race are your kids? What race will their kids be if they marry people who don't look like them? Or, do you think that they'll be "mixed-race"?

Of course, I can see that people look different. But, that's meaningless. Races weren't created; they were invented by people who wanted to explain why they're superior. We all have a common ancestor. Just like your kids, and their kids, and my kids. Hey, try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxgS9RKwKbU

Maybe instead of "race," we humans should divvy up our populace by "breed" -- just as we do with dogs, horses, chickens and all other domestic critters. Makes sense, doesn't it? The creation of a breed is the result of intentional trait/gene selection... a benign sort of eugenics we perform on non-human animals. The various physical-external traits we consider to be aspects of "race," are the result of breeding and inbreeding within isolated human populations, so that certain traits became prevalent (such as "shovel-shaped" incisors and epicanthic folds in Asians, or "peppercorn" hair texture in Australoid people). It's Nature's way of creating breeds.

Just think: We could come up with all of the tschotchkes that pet oweners snarf up when they want to show their pride of ownership: Bumper stickers with those "I *heart* my *human breed head" picto-word-grams and tote bags with silhouette profiles printed on 'em. And then it will be sooo easy to come up with the right term for ourselves when we're the product of mixed-breeding: Heinz 57 comes to mind.

Me? I'm a mixed breed of Middle-Eastern Hummus Nosher and Eastern-Euro Klezmer Fiddler, with a smidgeon of Slavic Peasant Roll-in-the-Hay.

What breed(s) are you? Do you have a bumper sticker and tote bag?

[Steve James]

Maybe instead of "race," we humans should divvy up our populace by "breed" -- just as we do with dogs, horses, chickens and all other domestic critters. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Well, yes and no. A more precise term would be sub-species. And, in terms of breeding dogs, the big ... humungous, difference is that "breeds" can be pure, and "races" cannot. Breeds are pure because they are models of the type, not species. But, what does the "pure" White breed look like? For dogs, we could check the kennel guidelines. Who would we check for humans? Who has the right (or even ability) to decide what the "pure" traits are or should be? For example, is the "pure" White breed blonde and blue-eyed? You know, like the Aryan tm breed? Well, they make up 2% of the world's population, making them a sub-sub-species, but I wouldn't say that makes all the other "White" people impure. (You wouldn't either, and you see exactly where I'm going).

I don't know a single Black person with all the characteristic (aka minstrel-show) stereotypical features. I've seen some. There are some in Africa, true; but they're not the majority. You're right that we're mutts. Every single one of us. And, where the genetic admixtures are the same, it doesn't matter where a person is from, he'll look pretty much the same. Now, it wouldn't be possible for someone to confuse a dachshund with a great-Dane. But, I'll bet there are only a handful of people who'd know that Carol Channing is mixed-race.

Hey, I'm not trying to say that everybody is the same. I'm saying that everybody's already different, even among the races. I'd even be down for everyone to do a genetic test, leave out the race stuff. I mean, c'mon, people "can" see, can't they. Why put it on an application or have to explain. Otoh, real genetic evidence could be helpful in treating diseases endemic to particular groups of people, like Tay Sachs, genetically. Of course, there's a danger there, too. But, it's perfectly feasible to categorize people without reference to the way they look. Unlike breeds of dogs, people don't have special abilities because of their breeds --though that's the myth.

Anyway, I'd rather be a black cat

[meeks]

But, what race are your kids? What race will their kids be if they marry people who don't look like them? Or, do you think that they'll be "mixed-race"?

race? mixed. Do i just 'think' she'll be mixed? no - that's the general term for people of 2 different races, although I've a feeling this isn't the end of me questioning you on what I thought was turning a blind eye to physical characteristics of humans on behalf of political correctness. for lack of a better term 'Eurasian'. But in reality, she's a mixed race, and that's about as far as we've classified things that I know of - for lack of a better term she's a 'mutt'. No 'new race' created just because 2 different races have offspring. Look at cats or dogs. I saw an ad the other day, some woman selling a bunch of puppies that were 1/2 poodle and 1/2 cockerspaniel - she even had a name for the 'breed' of dog, something like 'cockerdle' or something stupid - hey lady, it's just a f***ing mutt - your poodle banged the neighbors cockerspaniel and now you're trying to pass it off as something exceptional....and the was asking like $1500 each!

how do you make a 'new breed'? well, lets look at the Bengal house cat - my parents used to breed those. Originally, someone bred a female Asian Leopard Cat with a black short-haired domestic male. Typically the male offspring between domestics and wildcats are infertile, and you need to get the father to breed with its daughters - this then creates a 'pure line' of Bengal house cat.

What I'm saying is just because you 'mate' with someone of another race doesn't create a new race - it's just a mix. She'll always be 'Eurasian' and I use that term only because it's already been coined. And in generations down the line, the Caucasian may be bred out, or the Asian may be bred out. Not a really strong argument for choosing to 'ignore race'. Granted neither of us are biologists. You are free to preach 'no race' just as much as people with canine teeth are free to preach vegan lifestyles.

[Steve James]

What I'm saying is just because you 'mate' with someone of another race doesn't create a new race - it's just a mix.

Well, like I said, we all have a common ancestor. So, at some point there was no "race." Then the humans that existed spread out and differentiated because of geographical isolation. That's fairly clear. The same as "breeds" of dogs don't really exist, they're "bred" through selective breeding. A mutt is still the same species as the finest pure bred. Dogs can't breed with cats or birds because they're different species.

Yes, your daughter is "mixed" and all her children will be mixed, right? We're all mixed, the same DNA with different expressions. We can all mate successfully. The reason for the term "mulatto" was based on the myth that the child of two "different races" would be sterile, a mule, and therefore incapable of reproduction. It's easy to preach against such.

And in generations down the line, the Caucasian may be bred out, or the Asian may be bred out.

I wouldn't use the term "bred" when it comes to humans. But, your wife's genes and yours will be part of all your children forever ... or as long as your family line. All you can argue is that your generational progeny will be classified according to how they look. That won't have any effect on their DNA. You saw the video I posted, surely.

As an aside, I often get into trouble because I'm against "affirmative action" based on race. But, I also say that as long as people want to abide by the concept of race, then it's probably going to be necessary to have "race based" solutions to social problem. I'd prefer if my "race" were kept out of it. I can't imagine where it's important, except in cases where there is a critical need for such identification. Maybe you can think of some. So, I don't ever ignore "race." Btw, Caucasian is not the same as "white" and certainly not European. People from India are Caucasian, but not European. That was acknowledged in Supreme Court decisions concerning them when they tried to obtain citizenship but it was only permitted for "Whites." That was the Singh case.

United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, who was a high caste Punjabi Sikh, settled in Oregon, could not be a naturalized citizen of the United States, despite the fact that anthropologists had defined the people in India as belonging to the Caucasian race. The ruling followed a decision in Takao Ozawa v. United States, where the same court had ruled that a light-skinned native of Japan could not be counted as "white", because "white" meant "Caucasian" and Ozawa was an "Asian". In Bhagat Singh Thind, the court seemed to contradict itself, ruling that Thind, though a Caucasian, was not a "white person" as used in "common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man."

Yep, the common man who was sitting on the bench ... which sort of gets us back to the case at hand.

[AllanF]

1st up the judge is a wanker!

Regardless of how you, personally, chose to think about race or lack there of. The fact remains that the vast majority of people do and identify characteristics to that race. Like it or not!

As someone who is in an interracial marriage and living in China. I have always had the belief that there is no race, but living here you are constantly reminded that there is race and there will always be race. My own daughter, is considered 'a mixture' (sounds like a bag of sweets) or more commonly a 'waiguohair' foreign child. Even my members of my daughter's own family (ie my wife's grandmother) call her that.

Do i like it? Not one little bit but there is f*ck all i can do about it.

How do i think of my daughter? Well she is Elaine! But if you want to get all which race is she? Then i would say she is half Scottish and half Chinese. Just like i am half English and half Scottish. I know they are not races but that is how i think of the subject, not in terms of race but of nationality.

[internalenthusiast]

thanks for the soyinka poem, steve. what a great poem.

[Michael]

A guy came over to China from Montreal to live with a Chinese he'd met who'd been visiting Canada. He, the tall, white Canadian, gets here and is living in his GF's apartment in Guangzhou, so she invites her family to visit for a while, you know, like six months. The whole time none of the Chinese girl's family will call him anything other than "laowai", which means foreigner. It was driving him mad because it was one of the only words he knew in Chinese and the way they said it obviously had a negative connotation. Blah, blah, blah, laowai. Blah, blah, blah, laowai.

It really bugged him when something in the apartment broke because they always blamed him, and he'd see them huddled around a leaky faucet or malfunctioning DVD player, blah, blah, blah, laowai. Six months and none of them ever called him directly by his name or to each other by his name. Nothing he could do but suffer. The relationship eventually fizzled out, but probably not because of the laowai thing, although being the outsider can really suck.

Chinese co-workers of mine point their 2 year olds at me, grimace and shout, "Laowai!" while actively encouraging their kids to copy their words and gestures, and perhaps unknowingly teaching them to copy their emotions. The fear is palpable. Wish they'd just teach the kids to call me "The Dude" or something nice. After four years, some of the fear they have of me has subsided.

[Steve James]

Frederick Douglass made a comment in the 1880s. His father was "white" and his mother "a slave." Because Douglass grew up to be an orator, lecturer,etc., he was admired by many. After a speech on day, he commented, "People are always asking me whether my intelligence came from my mother or my father. It's a typical American question."

Just like i am half English and half Scottish. I know they are not races but that is how i think of the subject, not in terms of race but of nationality.

Well, that's kinda the point isn't it? If ya exchange "race" for "nation," then it's just as accurate, no? Before the invention of "race" in the 17th century, people were described as being of nations. This is seen, for example, in the Bible. But, in the 18th, 19th and parts of the 20th centuries, it was also common for people to talk about the "Irish race." It took a long time for the Irish to be considered "white" in the United States. (See "How the Irish Became White" by Noel Ignatiev). So, is there a "white" race at all? Or is it a categorization that lumps together people who look a certain way? If it's just a convenient categorization of the way people look, the shape of their eyes and noses, ok. Is that what it is, though? Not at all, the categorizations were for legal purposes, not aesthetics. So, I still wonder why people here have to identify their race on legal documents when it's written on their faces. (Actually, the real reason is that "race" is not always apparent when it comes to "mixes."

Well, AllanF, I have no illusions about getting rid of "race." Put it like this, the concept has been an advantage for some in this country, those who made the laws, and most of the "mixed race" children. That's just a fact. So, just because of that, I wouldn't accept the argument (DNA evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding). I.e., I ain't nobody's invention, noble and logical as it might seem to them.

The concept has been an obvious disadvantage for others. C'mon, that's why Mr. Judge wanted to prevent that couple from marrying .... because of the problems the children will face. Now, it's 2009; but I expect to be arguing this point for the rest of my lifetime --and I will, since I've been doing it for the last 40 years. But, it's simply not true that "race" has always been here and always will. It's more like there will always be those who favor using it.

Btw AllanF, in China, what "race" is your daughter? Are there special laws for mixed race Chinese?

(Btw, I have a love-child with a Spaniard; i.e., from Spain, a European. She's Spanish. Simple, no? "Is she light Spanish or dark?" Doh!)

[Steve James]

And [He] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,
Acts 17:26

[The K Prodigy]

I see race classifications as arbitrary. Anyone's sperm can impregnate anyone's ovum.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

1st up the judge is a wanker!

Regardless of how you, personally, chose to think about race or lack there of. The fact remains that the vast majority of people do and identify characteristics to that race. Like it or not!

As someone who is in an interracial marriage and living in China. I have always had the belief that there is no race, but living here you are constantly reminded that there is race and there will always be race. My own daughter, is considered 'a mixture' (sounds like a bag of sweets) or more commonly a 'waiguohair' foreign child. Even my members of my daughter's own family (ie my wife's grandmother) call her that.

Do i like it? Not one little bit but there is f*ck all i can do about it.

How do i think of my daughter? Well she is Elaine! But if you want to get all which race is she? Then i would say she is half Scottish and half Chinese. Just like i am half English and half Scottish. I know they are not races but that is how i think of the subject, not in terms of race but of nationality.

I'm sorry about your being half english. That must be hell.

j/k

Interloper, I like your breeds anaolgy and we do indeed already do that with nationalism. For instance here in Canada, you have many who call themselves "nationaility"-Canadian, same in the states.
In england they take it back to normands or anglo-saxons and it gets sub-divded down further and further. Hair color is indicative of place of origin and so on. So, we do this already in a sense.
We do have bumper stickers pronouncing our pride in our breed. lol

[Interloper]

I'm sure you know I was being facetious, Steve.
Because the whole issue of "race" is just so absurd. And we humans are just too anthropocentric to think of ourselves as potential subspecies, or subject to genetic drift as all other living things are. But tote bags and bumperstickers with one's favorite breed on them are something everyone can relate to.

Maybe instead of "race," we humans should divvy up our populace by "breed" -- just as we do with dogs, horses, chickens and all other domestic critters. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Well, yes and no. A more precise term would be sub-species. And, in terms of breeding dogs, the big ... humungous, difference is that "breeds" can be pure, and "races" cannot. Breeds are pure because they are models of the type, not species. But, what does the "pure" White breed look like? For dogs, we could check the kennel guidelines. Who would we check for humans? Who has the right (or even ability) to decide what the "pure" traits are or should be? For example, is the "pure" White breed blonde and blue-eyed? You know, like the Aryan tm breed? Well, they make up 2% of the world's population, making them a sub-sub-species, but I wouldn't say that makes all the other "White" people impure. (You wouldn't either, and you see exactly where I'm going).

I don't know a single Black person with all the characteristic (aka minstrel-show) stereotypical features. I've seen some. There are some in Africa, true; but they're not the majority. You're right that we're mutts. Every single one of us. And, where the genetic admixtures are the same, it doesn't matter where a person is from, he'll look pretty much the same. Now, it wouldn't be possible for someone to confuse a dachshund with a great-Dane. But, I'll bet there are only a handful of people who'd know that Carol Channing is mixed-race.

Hey, I'm not trying to say that everybody is the same. I'm saying that everybody's already different, even among the races. I'd even be down for everyone to do a genetic test, leave out the race stuff. I mean, c'mon, people "can" see, can't they. Why put it on an application or have to explain. Otoh, real genetic evidence could be helpful in treating diseases endemic to particular groups of people, like Tay Sachs, genetically. Of course, there's a danger there, too. But, it's perfectly feasible to categorize people without reference to the way they look. Unlike breeds of dogs, people don't have special abilities because of their breeds --though that's the myth.

Anyway, I'd rather be a black cat

[Interloper]

I see race classifications as arbitrary. Anyone's sperm can impregnate anyone's ovum.

Yep.

[Chanchu]

What a clown- I hope he does not reproduce.

[Interloper]

(snip) ...the United States Supreme Court decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, who was a high caste Punjabi Sikh, settled in Oregon, could not be a naturalized citizen of the United States, despite the fact that anthropologists had defined the people in India as belonging to the Caucasian race. The ruling followed a decision in Takao Ozawa v. United States, where the same court had ruled that a light-skinned native of Japan could not be counted as "white", because "white" meant "Caucasian" and Ozawa was an "Asian". In Bhagat Singh Thind, the court seemed to contradict itself, ruling that Thind, though a Caucasian, was not a "white person" as used in "common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man."

We have discussed those cases before on this forum. There was also a Chinese man with very "white" skin who was similarly denied citizenship because he wasn't "White" (as opposed to "white").

All of this drives home the point that those who are in power are free to choose arbitrary classifications that further and promote their personal agendas. One of those agendas -- which we see time and again -- has included wishing to restrict citizenship (or residency in one's neighborhood, or membership in one's club, etc., etc. )to individuals who "look," act, worship and observe the same traditions as oneself. Beyond that self-serving agenda, the concept of "race" doesn't seem to hold any significan use or purpose.